The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

I think a lot of the problem we see here is that attitudes and beliefs are not integrated very well. For example, "reason" goes to class, "emotion" visits a lover, "will power" studies for an exam and "religious duty" is to believe. This compartmentalization of values and goals disintegrates, rather than integrates the unity of the personality; the person is in “pieces” within as well as without and does not know which way to go.

But I did not claim that my world view is complete and unassailable. My approach to philosophy and other sources of learning is that I want to improve upon my own narrative about what is real and what unreal.As I said, my world view narrative about what is real is pro tem. My compass on this chartless sea is my own personality which happens as a result of my childhood learning from significant others such as parents, neighbours, church, and schools.

Me too. The question is how those biases manifest; e.g., are they internally consistent?

Consistency is easy enough. What's really needed is to dig down to the base and unpack the false assumptions upon which the consistent views are built. This is not easy. It can leave you bereft of all certainty.
The deepest misconceptions and fallacies can be internally consistent and feed each other.
On the question of agnosticism. You might want to ask yourself, why is the notion of "God" a question at all?
From childhood we have been indoctrinated to stay mute and not ask questions about this particular question, whilst in all other subjects we are asked to think about things.

In the same way the human species from the earliest moments of civilisation has been offered this "God" concept as an endemic assumption, uncritically - the only question "What is god like", not able to question the question itself.

I'm not agnostic about God at all. It is simply not a question of any value at all.

TH you say you are indoctrinated to stay mute and then say there is no value anyway. Does this mean you were right to be indoctrinated? I can't quite follow your logic. Seems to me that what people believe has a great deal of value, but that value comes in many different ways.

Consistency is easy enough. What's really needed is to dig down to the base and unpack the false assumptions upon which the consistent views are built. This is not easy. It can leave you bereft of all certainty.

I agree. Consistency is easy enough; it's following the logic through to the bitter end that's difficult. For example, on its surface agnosticism is logical, but the more we dig, the more problematic it becomes. How can we know ourselves of we do not know our relation with the universe? How can we formulate a universe frame in which to think if we can't decide between the bales of hay? How do we decide anything at all if we can't decide on what's most fundamental in our lives?

The deepest misconceptions and fallacies can be internally consistent and feed each other.On the question of agnosticism. You might want to ask yourself, why is the notion of "God" a question at all?
From childhood we have been indoctrinated to stay mute and not ask questions about this particular question, whilst in all other subjects we are asked to think about things.